Sands v. Mudano et al

Filing 24

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, the Court enters the following orders:(1) Plaintiff's motion to amend (Doc. # 21 ) is GRANTED. The Clerk is requested to separately docket the amended complaint.(2) The claims against defendant Mudano remain DISMISSED. The case continues on the excessive force claims against defendants Seely, Secondi, Muckle, Miller, Duggan, Messier and Stadalnik, and the deliberate indifference claim against defendant Evans. The c ase also will proceed on a deliberate indifference to safety claim against defendant Iozzia. The claim against defendant Garnett is DISMISSED.(3) The Clerk shall verify the current work address of defendant Iozzia with the Department of Correcti on Office of Legal Affairs, mail a waiver of service of process request packet to him at the confirmed address within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, and report to the Court on the status of the waiver request on the thirty-fifth (35) day after m ailing. If defendant Iozzia fails to return the waiver request, the Clerk shall make arrangements for in-person service by the U.S. Marshals Service on the defendant in his individual capacity and the defendant shall be required to pay the costs of s uch service in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d).(4) Defendants shall file their response to the amended complaint, either an answer or motion to dismiss, within sixty (60) days from the date the waiver form is sent. If they ch oose to file an answer, they shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to the cognizable claim recited above. They also may include any and all additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules.(5) Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of C ivil Procedure 26 through 37, shall be completed within four months (120 days) from the date of this order. Discovery requests need not be filed with the court.(6) All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within five months (150 days) from the date of this order.(7) Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(a), a nonmoving party must respond to a dispositive motion within twenty-one (21) days of the date the motion was filed. If no response is filed, or the response is not timely, the dispositive motion can be granted absent objection.(8) Defendants motion for extension of time (Doc. # 23 ) is GRANTED in accordance with the terms of this order. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 9/14/2017. (Lombard, N.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

KYRON M. SANDS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPUTY WARDEN MUDANO, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 3:16-cv-1941 (JAM)

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER RE AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
On January 19, 2017, the Court filed an Initial Review Order directing service of the
complaint on all defendants except Mudano and Iozzia and affording plaintiff an opportunity to
file an amended complaint to allege facts supporting his claim against these two defendants. Doc.
#7. Plaintiff has filed a motion to amend accompanied by an amended complaint. Doc. #21. The
proposed amended complaint lists all original defendants and one new defendant, State Police
Trooper Garnett. Plaintiff’s motion to amend will be granted, and this ruling reviews the
adequacy of the new allegations in the amended complaint.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff names twelve defendants, Deputy Warden Guiliana Mudano, Lieutenants Iozzia
and Meeker, Judicial Marshalls Gregory Seely and Secondi, Correctional Officers Muckle,
Miller, Duggan, Messier and Stadalnik, Nurse Chuck Evans and State Trooper Garnett. The
claims against defendants Meeker, Seely, Secondi, Muckle, Miller, Duggan, Messier, Stadalnik
and Evans are the same claims included in the original complaint and will not be repeated here.
The following allegations relating to defendants Mudano, Iozzia and Garnett from

plaintiff’s amended complaint are accepted as true for purposes of the Court’s review.
Following the assault by the other defendants, Iozzia told plaintiff to stand up, be quiet
and listen to the officers or he would be sprayed with a chemical agent. Doc. #21-1 at 9 (¶ 45).
Plaintiff told Iozzia that he had been assaulted by the defendants while handcuffed and was
bleeding and in pain. Id. (¶ 46). Instead of assisting plaintiff, Iozzia told him to stop resisting and
yelling. Id. (¶ 47). Plaintiff asked to see mental health staff but Iozzia denied the request. Id. at
10 (¶¶ 48-49). Plaintiff then threatened a lawsuit. Id. (¶ 50). Iozzia ordered plaintiff brought into
the correctional facility and placed in a holding cell. Id. (¶¶ 52-54).
After he was in the holding cell for about an hour, defendant Garnett came to the
admitting and processing area and spoke with defendants Iozzia and Seely. Id. at 12 (¶ 74).
Defendant Garnett told plaintiff that he was being charged with assault. Id. at 13 (¶ 76). Plaintiff
stated that defendant Garnett had been given false information and asked that he speak to the
other inmates on the van and review video footage before arresting him. Defendant Garnett was
not interested in plaintiff’s explanation. Id. at 13-14 (¶¶ 77-79, 81-89).
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court must review prisoner civil complaints and
dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, that fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. The Court must accept as true all factual matters alleged in a complaint, although a
complaint may not survive unless its factual recitations state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Mastafa v. Chevron Corp., 770
F.3d 170, 177 (2d Cir. 2014) (same). Nevertheless, it is well-established that “pro se complaints
2

‘must be construed liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.’”
Sykes v. Bank of Am., 723 F.3d 399, 403 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006)); see also Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101-02
(2d Cir. 2010) (discussing special rules of solicitude for pro se litigants).
Plaintiff was given leave to amend his complaint to allege facts against defendants
Mudano and Iozzia. He has alleged no facts against defendant Mudano. Therefore, all claims
against defendant Mudano remain dismissed.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant Iozzia was deliberately indifferent to his safety. Prison
officials have a duty to make reasonable efforts to ensure inmate safety. To establish a
constitutional violation, an inmate must show that the conditions of his incarceration posed a
substantial risk of serious harm and that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his
safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Deliberate indifference exists if prison
officials know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate safety. See id. at 837; Bridgewater v.
Taylor, 698 F. Supp. 2d 351, 358 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (explaining that defendants must be aware of
facts supporting an inference that harm would occur and must actually draw that inference).
Plaintiff alleges that defendant Iozzia was aware of but ignored that other defendants
were assaulting plaintiff and that he failed to immediately stop the assault or ensure that plaintiff
received proper medical and mental health treatment. This allegation is sufficient to state a claim
for deliberate indifference to safety.
Plaintiff also names Garnett who was described in the original complaint but not named
as a defendant. Plaintiff alleges that Garnett arrested him for assault based on information from
Iozzia and Seely. Plaintiff complains that Garnett did not believe plaintiff’s statements or verify
3

the information he had been given by interviewing other inmates on the van or by reviewing
surveillance footage. These allegations do not suffice to establish a claim against Garnett. If a
law enforcement official has probable cause to arrest someone, the Constitution does not require
that the official first conduct an exhaustive investigation to determine if there is additional
evidence that may be exculpatory. See Garcia v. Does, 779 F.3d 84, 93 (2d Cir. 2015). Nor must
a law enforcement official necessarily credit an arrestee’s explanations or protestations of
innocence. See Pannetta v. Crowley, 460 F.3d 388, 398 (2d Cir. 2006).
Finally, plaintiff’s amended complaint seeks injunctive relief. But because plaintiff is no
longer at the same correctional facility (Doc. #22), any claim for injunctive relief is moot. See
Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F. 3d 263, 272 (2d Cir. 2011). Accordingly, this action shall proceed
solely against the defendants in their individual capacities with respect to plaintiff’s claim for
money damages.
CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing analysis, the Court enters the following orders:
(1)

Plaintiff’s motion to amend (Doc. #21) is GRANTED. The Clerk is requested to

separately docket the amended complaint.
(2)

The claims against defendant Mudano remain DISMISSED. The case continues

on the excessive force claims against defendants Seely, Secondi, Muckle, Miller, Duggan,
Messier and Stadalnik, and the deliberate indifference claim against defendant Evans. The case
also will proceed on a deliberate indifference to safety claim against defendant Iozzia. The claim
against defendant Garnett is DISMISSED.

4

(3)

The Clerk shall verify the current work address of defendant Iozzia with the

Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs, mail a waiver of service of process request
packet to him at the confirmed address within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, and report to
the Court on the status of the waiver request on the thirty-fifth (35) day after mailing. If
defendant Iozzia fails to return the waiver request, the Clerk shall make arrangements for inperson service by the U.S. Marshals Service on the defendant in his individual capacity and the
defendant shall be required to pay the costs of such service in accordance with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(d).
(4)

Defendants shall file their response to the amended complaint, either an answer or

motion to dismiss, within sixty (60) days from the date the waiver form is sent. If they choose to
file an answer, they shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to the cognizable claim
recited above. They also may include any and all additional defenses permitted by the Federal
Rules.
(5)

Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, shall be

completed within four months (120 days) from the date of this order. Discovery requests need
not be filed with the court.
(6)

All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within five months (150 days)

from the date of this order.
(7)

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(a), a nonmoving party must respond to a

dispositive motion within twenty-one (21) days of the date the motion was filed. If no response is
filed, or the response is not timely, the dispositive motion can be granted absent objection.

5

(8)

Defendants’ motion for extension of time (Doc. #23) is GRANTED in accordance

with the terms of this order.
It is so ordered.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this 14th day of September 2017.
/s/ Jeffrey Alker Meyer
Jeffrey Alker Meyer
United States District Judge

6